Saturday, December 05, 2015

Apparently it's not just pro-lifers who think there is no difference between aborting fetuses and killing infants

12 comments:

That's why it's so important to provide better support for young mothers, including pre-natal care and education, and generous support for low-income mothers, and daycare facilities. Too bad Republican politicians care absolutely nothing for post-natal infants. They're murdering babies.

Hey, why shouldn't the government provide free birth control and sex education classes too? That would save a whole lot of money later on. And you could also provide a wide range of women's healthcare at those same facilities.

Anyone who was serious about stopping abortion would have to support these kinds of programs. It's just logical. It doesn't cost that much, and it saves more in the long run, so it's a great investment in our society.

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

If killing babies is the kind of thing valued by a “liberal” society, then we ought to oppose it. And it that makes one fanatical, then I admit it: I’m a big fan of not killing babies.

said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article.

Oh, sure, today they’re called “death threats”, but just give it a few more decades — in the enlightened future, they’ll simply be called “calls for extra-late-term post-natal abortive health care”.

there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty.

If there’s one thing we don’t want, it’s a drive to kill.

Unless it's babies, in which case, go ahead, open season!!

"This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

The difference is that he should refer to abortion as antenatal infanticide because that’s what it is, whereas “postnatal abortion” is oddly confused. After all, “abortion” is short for “abortion of a pregnancy” — a euphemism intended to focus on an abstract state instead of on the baby getting killed. There’s no pregnancy after the baby is born, so the only thing that could be said to be getting “aborted” is the baby’s life, the very thing the term was supposed to be drawing attention away from… and we're supposed to trust people who can’t even handle their own Orwellian Newspeak?

No, John, that would be the women and men procuring and providing abortion services.

Hey, here's one for you. Next time you encounter a pregnant pro-choice woman, walk up to her, pat her belly and say, 'So, you getting this one hooked or not?'

It is, after all, her right - and according to you, she'd be completely moral in making that choice. She shouldn't be offended either, because you're just talking about some invasive parasite in her womb.

Oh Crude, why do you assume I think abortion is moral? Just because I'm an atheist and a liberal? But in my comment above I'm suggesting lots of ways to reduce the number of abortions. The truth is, I think abortions are awful and we need to stop that practice. Where you and I disagree is probably just in the tactics for achieving that end. I guess you think passing a law making abortion a crime would do the trick - case closed. I think that's too short-sighted and actually shows a lack of concern for babies and mothers.

To be a father and mother to a child is sacrifice. This sacrifice is what makes life worthwhile. This selfless giving provides your children something to look up to. Sure it would be great to hand off this responsibility to some government program to raise your kids, but who really has any respect for that?

John. Imagine that your bathroom is flooding. There are a bunch of things you could do. You could make sure the drain hole stays clear so it doesn't clog up and prevent water draining out. You could use towels to wall off the doorway. You could get a couple of friends to help you bail water out the window. You could even knock a huge hole in the floor.

All of these have value in dealing with the immediate situation. But the most helpful long term solution is to turn off the tap! Our society creates incentives for people to leave the tap running, and then fights about acceptable ways of dealing with the symptoms.

Unless and until we are willing to deal with the source of the problem - our insistence on sexual immorality as an approved social choice - we're going to have issues down the line. But our refusal to turn off the tap shouldn't justify knocking holes in the floor.

Whoa! We really do have different views of the world. When I look around, I just see social disapproval of sexual immorality. If you get pregnant when unwed, people pity you, and some people make fun of you. It's not immorality; it's ignorance.

The solution isn't to shame people or coerce people. The solution is to educate people. Do you know where to buy condoms? Do you know how to use them properly? Do you know about IUDs and the pill? Anyone who might be sexually active needs to know all these options, or else they could end up on skid row.

Of course people need to know about sexually transmitted diseases too, and about asking for and giving consent. These are really basic things that everyone should know, just like literacy and arithmetic. When the Republicans oppose real practical sex education, they just confirm themselves as the stupid party.

And by the way, Dave Duffy, I don't think of parenthood as a sacrifice at all. I did it because I wanted to! It was a great life experience, and my kids don't owe me anything. What do you think about that?

John. Broadly speaking, I disagree. The social disapproval is not of sexual immorality, but of the consequences thereof. At least that's the way the "thought leaders" are pushing. We're against STDs, family breakdown, and unwed pregnancy. We're for "always wear a condom", "my body my rules", men mutually masturbating other men, and "if it feels good, do it".

We don't like the water on the floor, but we really, really want to leave the tap running, and we vigorously attack anyone who suggests turning it off.

Education is not the problem. Sin is the problem, and an unwillingness to tell people "Your desires are dumb and harmful, don't do it". Also, a desire to insulate people from the consequences of their folly, rather than rescue them.

Well, education is easy to provide whereas you can never get rid of sin. Admit it - even sincere born again Christians still sin. The difference with a Christian isn't that you don't sin - it's that you're forgiven.

How is a good Christian supposed to live in a world of sin? You might just try to hold it in, like shutting off a tap and blocking it and holding back all that pressure. But what happens when the pipe bursts? What are you going to do, practically speaking, to deal with the consequences of sin right now in your earthly life?

Do you think education can cause you to sin? Does talking about condoms make you more likely to commit fornication? If you think this way, I suggest you're blaming education for your own deeper sinfulness. The smart Christian gets the education and then practices abstinence.

Do you think the government should tell people to hold back their sexual urges? That's none of the government's business, right? On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the government can organize mass education on a basic level better than the private sector can. Sure, the private sector can educate wealthy people better, but society as a whole needs everyone to have a certain basic education, and so there's a role for government in that. Do you disagree?

But here's the critical principle: what you fund, you incentivise. What you incentivise, you get more of.

There is something worse than not explaining to people the consequences of their bad decisions. And that is to explain the consequences, and then reassure them that you'll take them away.

However, I don't think modern society is even doing that. Instead, the message is that some / most sexual "immorality" is actually "good" and desirable, and that society will insure you against anything "bad" that might happen to occur. The cause-effect relationship of those dated sexual rules? Our technologically and socially enlightened age can take away the bad effects so you too can indulge to your heart's content. Indulgence without consequence.

The actual effect is to push the consequences off on others (including but not limited to taxpayers, estranged fathers, conflicted women, aborted babies), or else pretend that they don't exist.

"And by the way, Dave Duffy, I don't think of parenthood as a sacrifice at all. I did it because I wanted to! It was a great life experience, and my kids don't owe me anything. What do you think about that?"

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.